The fair share is the share of taxes that were paid by the rich in the 1950s.

Can you arrange a massive world war with the US having most of the still functioning industry left?

That seemed to work out pretty nicely for us.

Quote
from kharvel
:

During those times, the tax rates were considered fair.

By a lot of those that didn't have to pay them.

Folks like JFK that did have to pay them, didn't think the taxes of the 1950's were fair, or good for the economy. That's why he started the ball rolling to lower them, which of course led to increased revenues to the treasury.

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
-John F Kennedy 1962

The "let's tax the shit out of those that make more than I'm ever going to" crowd is probably not smart enough to realize exactly how much that's going to cost them.

Taxes rob us of our current productivity, debt robs us of our future productivity AND our current investment capital.

This is extremely simplistic and therefore wrong. Taxes do not "rob us of our current productivity," depending of course, on how they are spent. Building new roads and bridges or maintaining them can in fact increase our productivity. Wars and military hardware, not so much.

Taxes can be "invested" and if so, do not rob us of "our current investment capital."

As much as the right like would to have us believe it, government spending and investment is not inherrently worse than private. In some ways it is better cause it serves the majoritys' interests, not just the few.

I know, terrible, right? All those people who were hired to build and maintain expensive crap for them, turrible indeed.

Watching that men who built america show is pretty eye-opening, yes some of these guy were filthy rich, but virtually all of them BUILT their own businesses with sheer financial genius and luck! At least for the Vanderbilts, looks like their kids stayed running the business as well so they earned their monies. Guy who built Biltmore took to more non-business activities while his brothers ran the company though.

What company? The railroads? Guess what? Trains were invented. ok? Somebody invented the train. Just like, "somebody invented retail merchandising". Having somebody corner the market is not economic growth. When the US rail industry was being built, so were Europe's. It's not that big a deal. It's not necessary to concentrate all of the retail and rail power in one insanely wealthy family that becomes royalty. We threw off Britain to get rid of royalty, not to create our own.

When wealth becomes too concentrated, competition ceases and inefficiency returns, along with economic inequality. I am very much in favor of capitalism and wealth, but I see no need for unlimited wealth accumulation, into the tens of billions of dollars.

Do I object to a wealthy person owning many cars and several fabulous homes? Not a bit. Do i object when the home is so large that an entire town sprouts up to support its single, unemployed occupant? You bet! There's something very wrong and unjust going on when the difference between rich and poor is so extreme. There's no need for it, honestly. People don't need unlimited wealth.

And if they used their ingenuity to move their money around so that you cant tax it, then what will you do next?

you gain some; you lose some. Why aren't they already gone? According to right-wingers they are already paying way way way more than their fair share. In fact Rmoney pledged to decrease their share and in the process give himself a huge tax break. I guess 13% was too much fro him. What a sleaze!

How about asking what share of the country's wealth is actually owned by different groups? Wealth and income inequality is far more germane to the issue of fairness than equality of the percentage of income tax paid by various groups.

It's better to be "poor" in America with its huge income inequality than it is to be "poor" in various other countries that have a smaller income inequality.

I save instead of wasting money on stupid crap, and so I should get taxed more for having more wealth than the person who blew all their money at the casino? Screw that.

Quote
from TRNT
:

Head tax for the win.

After all what is more equal/fair than Rmoney and a teacher with 5 children pay the same dollar amount of tax.

Tell the teacher don't have five children if they're not willing to pay for them.

Quote
from bsg75
:

What is being proposed is letting the Bush era tax cuts for the rich expire, allowing them to revert to the rates from the Clinton years, which were lower than the rates from the years of your savior, Ronald Reagan.

Will the rich then be able to deduct credit card interest and whatever else like they used to too?

Quote
from CyberGuy
:

Basically "fair share" would be the maximum amount you can tax the wealthy without significantly removing the financial incentive for innovation and entrepreneurship in this country.

Tax rates shouldn't be based on how much or how little financial incentive or innovation or entrepreneurship.

Quote
from garric
:

The tax rates in the 1940s and 1950s were this high due to the war and preventing war profiteering broski.

What we need to do to avoid "the fiscal cliff" is to cut spending by a huge amount like was done right after WW2.

Huh... such a thing is so weird... no war going on, no "stimulus" spending, a 40% cut in federal spending in one year (and additional cuts the next couple years), and the world didn't end and the country didn't fall off a cliff.

My frustration with the "tax the rich" mentality is that why are we even arguing about it? OK great, let's say we'll "tax the rich" by whatever metric you choose. How much does this raise? As a country, comparing to the average Joe, we "make" about $50k and spend $77k PER YEAR with around $350k (yes K) on the credit card. The balance ($22k/yr) is made up of borrowing (good old CC) and theft (inflation via magic money generation).

If "taxing the rich" is the annual equivalent of a cell phone bill (say $200... I still haven't been able to find concrete values for what "taxing the rich" would raise), that's great and all, but we're still $21,800 away from sustainability. It's ludicrous. At this point, we should be looking for "low hanging fruit" - what cuts get you the most bang for your buck. Instead, we're intent on arguing over a tiny % of the deficit which is effectively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Look, this is not a matter of jealousy. I have brought up this point several times but no one bites. Consider the NBA rules. Say as of now and under present rules the Lakers are the likely top team. Then change some of the rules: add a 4 point shot. Allow goal tending, limit each players play time to 5 minutes, etc etc etc. All of a sudden a different team would be the top team.

Right now with the system of rules that we have 6 Waltons can be wroth more than 96 million Americans put together. If you like that, you will support status quote and accuse others of jealousy. If you don't then you would change the rules to make such possibilities less likely. This is not about jealousy. This is about what rules we would like to have in our society. This is still a one man one vote country and not a one dollar one vote as much as some badly want it. (I hear some want to go back to the time that only land owners can vote. Hard to believe but true.)

I think it is wonderful that only in America can someone go from rags to riches like the great people you describe. I'm sure you agree.

All growth depends upon activity. There is no development physically or intellectually without effort, and effort means work. — Calvin Coolidge"Under Barack Obama, the only 'change' is that 'hope' is hard to find" - Marco Rubio

Personally I would define someone's "fair share" as Total US Expenditures/US Population because simply put that is what is fair. Clearly that's not going to happen as not everyone can afford to pay their fair share. Just look at the 47% who can't afford to pay any federal income taxes yet can have a flashy cell phone, a PS3, cable TV, go out drinking, ya know the necessities of life...

If you and a friend go halfsie's on a pizza I'd expect each to get half of the pizza. If a guy and his friend rent a two bedroom apartment I'd expect the person who gets the master bedroom and ensuite bathroom to pay more than the guy in the smaller room and that gets the smaller bath, etc.. Or is that just me? Are there people on this board who think that if you and your uber rich friend get a pizza he should be forced to pay for 90% of the pizza and you pay 10%, or that your uber rich friend pays 80% of the rent yet gets the small bedroom while you get the master?? Fair, to most people is an extremely clear thing in most circumstances it's just that when it comes to the taxes we pay people would far rather shift the burden on to the rich for the simple reason that it's not them, they don't ever expect to be them, they don't know any of them, and well they just like to dislike them presumably because they are jealous or envious of their financial situation.

My frustration with the "tax the rich" mentality is that why are we even arguing about it? OK great, let's say we'll "tax the rich" by whatever metric you choose. How much does this raise? As a country, comparing to the average Joe, we "make" about $50k and spend $77k PER YEAR with around $350k (yes K) on the credit card. The balance ($22k/yr) is made up of borrowing (good old CC) and theft (inflation via magic money generation).

If "taxing the rich" is the annual equivalent of a cell phone bill (say $200... I still haven't been able to find concrete values for what "taxing the rich" would raise), that's great and all, but we're still $21,800 away from sustainability. It's ludicrous. At this point, we should be looking for "low hanging fruit" - what cuts get you the most bang for your buck. Instead, we're intent on arguing over a tiny % of the deficit which is effectively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Not to mention that with baseline budgeting, next year you must spend $83K, because you know, thats what you need to do anyway.

The govt people are talking about how much to cut out of that 6k increase, not the entire spending. Its gonna take a HUGE kick in the pants before people wake up, and if we look across the pond, lots of people will never get the message either.

This Thread is more than 793 days old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.If you still feel it is necessary to make a new reply you may do so.
I am aware that this Thread is rather old but I still want to make a reply.

Found a Deal?
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.

First Time?
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.

Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
user guide
that explains the features of our site.